3200+ 400FSB with 1gb RAM vs. 2400+ 266FSB with 768mb RAM...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with 768mb
of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the 3200+
and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable really.
I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing. So
what do you think?

 

[Rick]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Probably, the reason you didn't notice any speed difference is because the
applications you are running were not being hampered by a lack of CPU power
and/or memory bandwidth. There could also be a bottleneck somewhere else for
some apps. Just for a few examples (I'm bored):

Obviously, surfing the web or running generic office apps on WinXP would
hardly show a difference, because the 2400+ and 768MB of PC2100 are more
than enough power already. Maybe something like Corel or Photoshop working
with very high res graphics would show the benefit of the faster and larger
RAM. If you're doing a lot of 2D CAD, I would think the faster CPU should
show a big benefit. If you're playing high res DX9 games, maybe your video
card is a bottleneck and the CPU and memory won't help until you upgrade
your video card. If your running large databases, you could still be limited
by your HD subsystem throughput.

You need to look at the whole computer and what you are running.

Cya, Rick

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news😛Nfcc.11353$4C5.6295@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with
768mb
> of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the
3200+
> and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
> So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
> made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable
really.
> I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
> that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
> does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
> batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing.
So
> what do you think?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I have do realize the small difference in processor speed-I thought the FSB
would make a bigger difference. I do have a decent video card: an Nvidia
5900se. I guess I just wanted to have the fastest processor in my machine
without having to get a 64-bit processor. This is about as kick-ass as I
can go with out doing that. I wonder if that would make a huge difference?
When I bought my mobo I figured I'd have more life out of it since I didn't
know AMD would stop at the 3200+. Actually, a few years ago I went from a
Celeron 566 to an AMD 1700+...now that was cool. I think it will be a while
before I will be able to buy anything that will kick my ass again. By the
way I do have a fair amount of knowledge about PC's. I like to upgrade as
much as I can and not let the technology get away from me too much. I also
know this is nearly impossible.


"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news😛Nfcc.11353$4C5.6295@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with
768mb
> of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the
3200+
> and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
> So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
> made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable
really.
> I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
> that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
> does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
> batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing.
So
> what do you think?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> writes:
>I have do realize the small difference in processor speed-I thought the FSB
>would make a bigger difference.

The cache on the processor is certainly going to try to hide any increases
in memory speed. IF you can find an application that has what is called
a large "working set", if I remember correctly, in other words, an app that
grabs from all over the memory space constantly and almost never uses the
same data twice THEN your cache is probably going to be of very little use
and the increase in FSB speed will help you more. But most realistic jobs
don't do that, for good reason.

But recently we were comparing amd 2000 versus amd 3200 on
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM
when trying to factor big ugly numbers. That makes almost little use
of memory and FSB should have a small effect. For the clock speed
increasing 1.6x (equivalently) the speed gain was about 1.25x

And the only way it seems to get around that is to buy 8 cheap amd
cpu/boards and run jobs in parallel.

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news😛Nfcc.11353$4C5.6295@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with
768mb
> of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the
3200+
> and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
> So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
> made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable
really.
> I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
> that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
> does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
> batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing.
So
> what do you think?

Well, an XP 2400+ is a 2.0 Ghz processor / 256K L2 / 266 FSB system. An
XP3200+ is a 2.2 Ghz / 51K L2 / 400 FSB system. I don't know why some here
are saying you went up 800Mhz in speed; you went up 200Mhz, boosted the FSB
by 133Mhz, and increased the L2 by 256K. Is it faster? Yes. Is a real "wow"
difference? No. If you bench it with 3D mark or Sandra it'll show some gains
on these synthetic benchmarks. In terms of feel, I can't tell the difference
between my Barton 2500 running stock and clocked to 3200+ levels. Benchmarks
show it though....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I guess my whole point is that anything from a 2000+ up to the 3200+ are so
close that "what's the point?"

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news😛Nfcc.11353$4C5.6295@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with
768mb
> of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the
3200+
> and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
> So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
> made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable
really.
> I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
> that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
> does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
> batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing.
So
> what do you think?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:27:01 GMT, "Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com>
wrote:

>I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with 768mb
>of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the 3200+
>and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
>So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
>made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable really.
>I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
>that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
>does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
>batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing. So
>what do you think?
>

You will have to excuse me for my seemingly harsh answer = but you
seem to be a little naive when it comes to your expectations of moving
up in CPU strength... I mean NOT to insult you but many of us have
also learned the same hard way, just how little the "ACTUAL"
performance leap is...

You went from 2400 to 3200,, which is a one-third (33%) increase of
CPU cyclic speed but the actual noticable grunt increase will be a lot
less than that. So even though the two figures, 2400 and 3200, have
quite some difference (800Mhz), you have to look at the percentage
increase - NOT the numerical increase..

Now if you had an 800 Mhz CPU then went up by another 800 Mhz, you
would notice one heck of a difference because you went up 100 percent
but going up by 33 percent like you did, represents a real world
increase of "not much"...

Personally, I like to move up a minimum of 50% (give or take)
increases as this gives me at least some noticable difference.
Remember too that with modern graphics cards, they have much of their
own built-in processing and RAM so CPU accounts for far less than it
did 2 or 3 years ago so gaming issues are somewhat less CPU related
now... Base your updates,, as far as CPU grunt goes,, on apps, not
games and don't expect the world to shake when you fire up your new
PC, with its new CPU...

In the past 4 years, I went from a PII-450 to a AMD 1.4Ghz Thuderbird
(now that was one serious leap forward),, to an XP2000+ and now to an
XP3000...

Maybe next time, you will be armed with a lot more knowledge...

 

[chip]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news😛Nfcc.11353$4C5.6295@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> I suppose I just looking for thoughts or opinions...I had a 2400+ with
768mb
> of PC2100 RAM it ran fine. But, I decided I wanted to upgrade to the
3200+
> and the 400FSB because I thought I was missing out on some serious speed.
> So I did and also got myself 1GB of that PC3200 RAM. Well, it has hardly
> made any difference at all. A little...but nothing even noticeable
really.
> I figure I went up 8 processors and almost doubled the FSB. I do realize
> that all the processors go up in tiny incraments. Why do you suppose AMD
> does this (besides money and marketing). I love the company but this last
> batch seems weird with the "almost no difference in performance" thing.
So
> what do you think?
>

On a slightly different note (although related to the sentiment above), its
interesting to see the extent to which the 32 bit XP really has reached the
end of the road:

About a year or so ago, I bought a 2100+ Tbred B. This would overclock to
2450MHz max.

Last November I bought a 3200+ Barton, hoping it would go higher. It tops
out at 2420MHz.

And last week I bought the new overclocking champ: an XP2500 Mobile. This
one tops out at 2470MHz.

i.e. the bottom line is the XP is finished. Its got nowhere to go. Only by
getting very lucky will you get one that can comfortably run above around
2500MHz without silly volts and cooling.

Lucky the 64 is on stream.

Chip

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:56:59 GMT, "Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com>
wrote:

>I guess my whole point is that anything from a 2000+ up to the 3200+ are so
>close that "what's the point?"
>

Oh,, I can assure you that going from 2000 to 3200Mhz CPU will yield
plenty of noticable results..

I think I mentioned that I went from an XP2000 CPU to an XP3000
recently, as well as other bits n pieces like motherboard,, RAM etc
and I certainly can notice quite a bit of extra grunt especially in...
Loading up/shutting down Windows..
Audio compressing..
Packing/unpacking large or multiple compressed files..
Moving/copying files..
In short,, all those applications which actually employ the CPU's
power,, also remembering other differences like onboard cache etc...

Some audio compressing may be in the order of the following.. Let's
say that it took 10 seconds to encode a certain mp3 track with the
XP2000. With the XP3000, it will take about 8 seconds to do the same
track... This may be in the order of only about 20% faster for a CPU
50% faster but that's all you can ever expect,, because you have to be
realistic..!!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Try encoding a movie or mp3 from a cd. That is where I noticed a difference
with my last upgrade. My XP3200+ runs at 100% for close to 30 minutes while
encoding. It used to take 40 at xp2500 speeds.

"Bruce Tyler" <top@bottom.au> wrote in message
news:8l04709ffmk3nsqjgnp0q1jrcsi71cudkg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:56:59 GMT, "Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I guess my whole point is that anything from a 2000+ up to the 3200+ are
so
> >close that "what's the point?"
> >
>
> Oh,, I can assure you that going from 2000 to 3200Mhz CPU will yield
> plenty of noticable results..
>
> I think I mentioned that I went from an XP2000 CPU to an XP3000
> recently, as well as other bits n pieces like motherboard,, RAM etc
> and I certainly can notice quite a bit of extra grunt especially in...
> Loading up/shutting down Windows..
> Audio compressing..
> Packing/unpacking large or multiple compressed files..
> Moving/copying files..
> In short,, all those applications which actually employ the CPU's
> power,, also remembering other differences like onboard cache etc...
>
> Some audio compressing may be in the order of the following.. Let's
> say that it took 10 seconds to encode a certain mp3 track with the
> XP2000. With the XP3000, it will take about 8 seconds to do the same
> track... This may be in the order of only about 20% faster for a CPU
> 50% faster but that's all you can ever expect,, because you have to be
> realistic..!!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I run a sim called "Trainz."

When I upgraded from a Tbird 1.4 to an XP2000+, I got exactly the frames per
second increase that the proportional increase from 1400 to 2000 would
suggest.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> track... This may be in the order of only about 20% faster for a CPU
> 50% faster but that's all you can ever expect,, because you have to be
> realistic..!!!

An XP3200 is 10% faster in Mhz than an XP2400. 2000Mhz vs. 2200Mhz. This
isn't even arguable...it's just a fact. The fact that it encodes MP3's and
other tasks about 20% faster is partly due to the 200Mhz increase, and the
rest is due to a true FSB increase of 67Mhz (133FSB to 200FSB), and L2
increase of 256K. The T-bred 2400+ is already a very efficient CPU, with 384
K of full speed L1/L2 so it's not overly surprising that the difference is
not huge. I'm surprised that people posting here think that the AMD's
performance rating represents an actual Mhz difference. It's marketing
hype....and in the case of the Barton's labeling it's somewhat inflated.